OM PRAKASH VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second bail application. The first bail ap ­plication was rejected on merit on 21 -2 -2000.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant contended that some facts could not be submitted at the time of moving of first bail application because certain papers were not available to the applicant. It is con ­tended that copy of the inquest report has been received by the applicant, which shows that at the time of inquest, Shri Rampati, the first informant, the father of the deceased and two close relations of Rampati, i.e. Sohan Lal Vishwakarma and Chhotey Lal Vishwakarma were present. They at that time had even made com ­pliant against the applicant but still the report of this case was not lodged on that day Le. 26 -5 -1999, rather the FIR was lodged on 5 -6 -1999. There was no reason for delay often days in lodging the FIR and this delay is unexplained.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant further contended that the applicant is in jail for the last about 16 months and the evidence has yet not been started. In sup ­port thereof the copy of the order sheet has been filed which shows that several dates have been fixed for evidence, but the wit ­nesses are not appearing.